Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Apr 2005

Vol. 600 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Hospital Accommodation.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue. The Sacred Heart Hospital in Castlebar is a home for the elderly in that it provides a combination of rehabilitation and continuing care for elderly people in the county. It has five units in which it cares for 180 patients.

St. Patrick's unit is partially closed, resulting in the loss of 12 beds to the system. This is a serious shortage, especially given the crisis at the accident and emergency unit at Mayo General Hospital, Castlebar. If the 12 beds were made available, it would alleviate pressure on the accident and emergency unit by moving patients on. The unit is partially closed because of structural damage owing to bad foundations. The outer wall is severely cracked and patients cannot be admitted because of health and safety requirements.

The Health Service Executive has made several proposals to the Department of Health and Children to have the problem remedied, but without success. The cost of the renovation to the unit and other patient areas is estimated at €1.5 million. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, and I have visited the unit and we both saw at first hand the condition of the wall and the cracks thereon. If the problem is not remedied in the near future, it will cost much more than €1.5 million because part of the outer wall will collapse.

I call on the Minister to take this issue seriously and make funds available to repair the unit so it can be made available to patients, as was originally intended. The loss of beds in the unit cannot be permitted to continue given that there is now such a demand for beds for the elderly. It does not stand up that a unit should be closed because of a structural fault not being repaired.

It is frustrating for the doctors, nurses and other staff to have the facility and yet not be able to use it because the Department will not make the funding available to repair it. I compliment the doctors, nurses and staff of the hospital on the high level of care they give to their patients and which they have given to them over many years. They are to be congratulated. I appeal to the Minister of State to make the necessary funds available.

I thank Deputy Carty for raising this matter and join him in paying tribute to the staff at the Sacred Heart Hospital, Castlebar. I am aware of the Deputy's deep concern over this issue which he has raised with me in the past.

The Government has made services for older people a priority and is fully committed to the development of a comprehensive health service capable of responding quickly, fully and effectively to the health service needs of older persons. In recent years, health and social services for older people have improved, both in hospitals and in the community. Since its entry into office, the Government has substantially increased the level of funding, both capital and revenue, in respect of services for older persons. Between 1997 and 2004, the total additional funding allocated was approximately €287 million and additional revenue funding of €15.228 million was announced for this year. This serves to demonstrate the Government's ongoing commitment to improving services for the older population.

Significant capital funding for the health sector has been provided since the commencement of the national development plan in the millennium year. Total expenditure for the years 2000 to 2003 was approximately €1.7 billion.

Considerable progress has been made in addressing the historical deficits in health infrastructure and improving the standards of facilities required for quality modern patient care. The national development plan has provided considerable capital funding to services for older people. On a national basis, this will enable a comprehensive infrastructure of community nursing units and day care facilities to be put in place as well as the refurbishment of existing extended-care facilities and the replacement of old, outdated accommodation. The Health Act 2004 provided for the Health Service Executive, which was established on 1 January 2005. Under the Act, the executive must manage and deliver, or arrange to be delivered on its behalf, health and personal social services. This includes responsibility for the provision of services at the Sacred Heart Hospital, Castlebar.

The HSE has advised that the 12 beds in St. Patrick's unit are not in use due to subsidence and that extensive work will be required to bring the unit up to the standard necessary for patient care. As responsibility for the development of services now rests with the HSE, any decisions on this issue will be a matter for the HSE, having regard to the western area's overall capital funding priorities in the context of the HSE's capital plan for 2005.

Garda Stations.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me raise this matter on the Adjournment. I also thank the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for being present to respond to me on a matter of serious concern to the personnel in Castleisland Garda station and to the people of the town.

I have already raised the issue of the long-awaited purchase of a site for the provision of a new Garda station in Castleisland several times in this Chamber. This is the third time I have raised the issue on the Adjournment. Recently, in the town of Castleisland, there have been some serious incidents. Examples of the type of violent crime that has occurred include a stabbing incident and an assault on a garda that left him with a broken nose.

Local media have highlighted the seriousness of the situation through articles on public disorder. The issue is of major concern to the people of the town yet despite the level of concern the gardaí continue to operate out of seriously sub-standard rented accommodation on Church Street. The dire working conditions in the makeshift station affect the morale of the Garda personnel based there. Two sergeants and eight gardaí operate out of the building. The facility is seriously cramped and has no parking facilities. It has no changing rooms or showers for the officers. It has only one toilet, used by the gardaí and members of the public alike. The building has no private interview room, the reception area is completely open and as a result, privacy and confidentiality cannot be offered to members of the public who call to the gardaí.

Not only is this accommodation entirely unsuitable for the officers in question, but it is bound to deter members of the public from reporting crime. To compound these problems, gardaí do not have the use of a holding cell in the building. Frequently, this creates a ludicrous situation whereby gardaí must make a one and a half hour round trip to Killarney Garda station for the use of a holding cell whenever they make an arrest. During the time it takes them to travel to and from Killarney, the town of Castleisland is left unprotected and without a Garda presence.

On 25 February of this year, the district committee of the Garda Representative Association warned the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the personnel based in Castleisland would abandon their current accommodation and operate out of Killarney Garda station by 1 July if a site for a new station in Castleisland is not purchased by that time. Nobody wants to reach that point but the gardaí feel they may have no alternative. It is almost unimaginable that a town the size of Castleisland could be left without a resident Garda presence due to the Government's negligence. Such a move would strike fear in the hearts and minds of those in Castleisland who need Garda protection and it would be a clear case of the Government failing in its duty to protect its citizens.

This disgraceful saga has dragged on for many years, with little or no progress. One delaying factor is the unavailability of a reasonably priced site. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Tom Parlon, informed me today, in a written answer to a parliamentary question, that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has confirmed the suitability of a proposed site and the Office of Public Works is preparing a valuation report on the site. The answer also stated that negotiations with the owner of the site would commence when the report has been completed and that the Commissioners of Public Works hope to be in a position to make an offer to purchase the site soon.

While I welcome any development that would lead to the building of the station, I hope this is not another cynical stalling tactic. Has the Minister considered what will happen if the owner of the site seeks more for the property than the price in the valuation report? Recently, as part of the Government's decentralisation programme, €4.5 million of taxpayers' money was spent in Killarney to secure the relocation of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Like Killarney, Castleisland is a busy and progressive town. Property in and around the town is at a premium and over the past four years, the value of some property had doubled. Four years ago the Commissioners of Public Works rejected an ideally located site for the new station in the centre of Castleisland.

I am determined to make sure this scandalous situation does not drag on for another four years. Were that to happen, apart from the obvious difficulties this would present to the Garda, procrastination on the purchase of a site would increase the cost burden on the taxpayer. The people of Castleisland need a new Garda station. The gardaí cannot be expected to continue to operate under the current arrangement and I commend them on the great job they do in extremely difficult and trying circumstances. In the context of the agreed priority list, the need for a new Garda station in Castleisland must be treated as an urgent priority and this should have been the case since the original station was subjected to an arson attack on 3 March 2001.

I am grateful to Deputy Deenihan for raising this matter and affording me the opportunity to explain the latest position regarding Castleisland Garda station. There was an arson attack on Castleisland Garda sub-district station in March 2001 which caused extensive smoke damage to the station. Following this incident, the Office of Public Works identified alternative temporary accommodation, acceptable to the Garda authorities, in the former Castleisland Credit Union premises.

All parties, however, agree that a new station is required for Castleisland. Accordingly, the Office of Public Works identified several sites for a new Garda station in the town. The Garda authorities confirmed the suitability of a proposed site and the Office of Public Works is preparing a valuation report on the site. Negotiations with the owner of the site will commence when the report has been completed and the Commissioners of Public Works hope soon to be able to make an offer to purchase the site.

I concede to the Deputy that this situation has gone on too long and assure him that the project is progressing and there will be no furtheravoidable delay in providing the new accommodation. I am aware of the threatened withdrawal of Garda personnel to Killarney Garda station from 1 July next. The Garda management officials of my Department and the Office of Public Works in full consultation and agreement with the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors decide on the selection of all new stations to be built or existing stations to be refurbished, including their relative priority. Castleisland Garda station has been and will continue to be dealt with within this process which has worked well in the past.

I can understand the frustration of the gardaí working in Castleisland Garda station, bearing in mind what the Deputy has said about it. I assure them that the matter is moving on and I will make it my business to find out why it has taken so long. I have directed officials from my Department to liaise with the Office of Public Works to expedite this important project and I will speak to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, to ensure that in so far as there is any problem in the fact that two agencies are involved that it receives the priority the situation demands from both of our Departments. Meanwhile, I ask all concerned to deal with the matter within the existing machinery.

The gardaí occupy some 703 Garda stations throughout the country. Many of them, including Castleisland, need to be rebuilt, updated, modernised or replaced. This is being done in a structured and systematic way. Much work has been done in recent years and more is scheduled over the next few years. In the order of €112 million will be spent between now and the end of 2007 on the overall Garda building programme. This level of investment demonstrates the high priority the Government affords to the programme. There has been significant recent work to improve Garda stations and build new stations around the country.

I am grateful to the Deputy for bringing this continuing and unacceptable delay to my attention. Four years is far too long to wait for this. We will learn lessons from this experience and will not repeat such a delay in future. The members of the force are doing a good job in their community and should have decent facilities, and temporary accommodation should not become permanent, which has been a trend in some cases.

Garda Investigations.

In 1991, Donegal Sinn Féin County Councillor, Eddie Fullerton, was assassinated by a British pseudo-gang, a loyalist death squad, at his home in Buncrana. His killing was later claimed by the UDA, using their other name, the UFF. No one has ever been convicted or charged with his killing. There is evidence of British armed forces collusion in his death. Eddie's photograph was among crown forces photomontages seized from loyalists by the Stephens Inquiry team six months after Eddie's killing, which probably came from their masters, the force research unit. Many believe that Eddie, who was shot just one month before local elections that year, was targeted as part of a wider campaign against Sinn Féin members, eight of whom were assassinated between 1989 and 1992.

There are also serious questions about irregularities in the Garda investigation. A number of the Donegal gardaí who are the subject of the Morris tribunal were involved in the Fullerton investigation, including disgraced Garda Noel McMahon. Despite this, the Fullerton family's requests to have the conduct of the gardaí in the case investigated by the Morris tribunal were refused. A reinvestigation into the case finally commenced 14 years later, not as a result of diligence on the part of the gardaí or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but because of the efforts of the Fullerton family who presented a dossier to the Minister demanding his assistance in the search for the truth. The Minister subsequently directed not a full public inquiry, but an internal re-examination of the case by the Garda Commissioner. This has resulted in an interim report to the Minister, which has never been published.

Yesterday, the Minister answered a series of questions I and my party colleagues put to him in the case. I welcome the Minister's reply, particularly in that it makes very clear that the British Government and the PSNI are holding up the process of finding out the truth about collusion in this case, and that it also leaves open the possibility of a public inquiry. However, I still need clarification on a number of issues.

In his answer yesterday, the Minister said the family's dossier amounted to no more than what was raised directly with the Garda Síochána 14 months previously. Will the Minister clarify why the matter was delayed until June 2003 rather than being addressed in April 2002 when this information came to light. In his answer yesterday, the Minister said that he will not publish the interim report he has received on the case because it is incomplete due to the outstanding information needed from the British authorities and the PSNI. However, he avoids committing to publishing the final report. We need this commitment now. The Fullerton family, the people of Buncrana and the Irish people as a whole deserve to know the truth about the assassination of this elected representative. Question marks also remain over the serious deficiencies in the original Garda investigation, including its failure to interview key suspects and a witness. The public deserves to know the truth about this.

Disturbingly, despite a direct question on the matter, it is unclear from the Minister's reply whether he has raised this case with the British Government. If he has not done so, I want a clear commitment as to when he will do so, as the assassination of an Irish public representative as a result of British intelligence collusion with a loyalist death squad is a matter of the utmost seriousness and of public importance. If he has done so, I would appreciate clarification as to exactly when the British Government was made aware of the outstanding matters necessary to complete the investigation. I need to know at what level the matter was raised. Was it with the British Prime Minister or at ministerial level? When were the police-to-police inquiries made and has the PSNI or British authorities given a timeframe as to when the outstanding information and co-operation will be provided?

I submit to the Minister Sinn Féin's position that, just as in the Pat Finucane case and all other cases where there is evidence that British crown forces colluded with loyalist death squads to target Irish citizens, there is an urgent need for a full public inquiry into the assassination of Eddie Fullerton.

As I have already put on the record of this House, the murder in 1991 of Mr. Eddie Fullerton, who was then a Sinn Féin councillor on Donegal County Council, was a most dreadful and heinous crime. I use the words "murder" and "crime" in respect of it. Regardless of who did it or why they did it, it is a murder and a crime, and the Deputy might note that. Unfortunately, to date, nobody has been made amenable for this appalling crime.

The so-called Ulster Freedom Fighters subsequently claimed responsibility for the murder, claiming that Councillor Fullerton was killed because he passed information to the Provisional IRA. It should be stated unequivocally that the subsequent Garda investigation indicated that there was no evidence to substantiate that claim, not that this is in any way relevant to what was cold-blooded, calculated and callous murder.

I am aware that since 2002 the Fullerton family has raised concerns about the murder and the ensuing investigations. In particular, the family has been calling for some form of inquiry into the matter. In April 2002, these concerns were raised directly with the Garda authorities in Buncrana. Subsequently, in June 2003, solicitors acting on behalf of the Fullerton family submitted to me a memorandum setting out these concerns, as well as outlining what is described as new evidence and new concerns. Included in these additional matters are references to a person characterised as a new "witness". This person made a statement to the Fullerton family's solicitors about events he allegedly witnessed shortly after the murder of Councillor Fullerton. According to the solicitors, these purported events pose radical questions for the integrity of the official Garda and RUC investigations into the murder.

In response to the submission of this memorandum and out of a genuine desire to seek to address the concerns of the Fullerton family, I referred the memorandum to the Garda Commissioner, who established a review team led by a chief superintendent to conduct a thorough and concise investigation into all matters of concern raised. The Garda review has been extremely extensive. I say that because I have seen the interim report, the scope of which has been enormous. It has involved interviews with more than 120 people and the taking of more than 150 witness statements. Recently, I have been in receipt of that interim report from the Garda authorities on the current, incomplete state of the review.

Although I do not plan to go into detail on the matter, I can confirm to the Deputy that members of the Garda review team interviewed the person characterised as a new witness to clarify his recollection of events on the day of the murder. I am informed that this person has stated that he could no longer stand over the statement he made to the Fullerton family's solicitor and, instead, made a new statement to the Garda review team.

I am pleased to report that the Garda review is drawing to a conclusion. The only outstanding matters relate to the awaited results of a mutual assistance request to the British authorities and certain police-to-police inquiries with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I have heard suggestions that the British and Northern Ireland authorities are failing to co-operate with these requests. I have no reason whatsoever to believe, nor have I received any indication, that either the British or Northern Ireland authorities have failed or will fail to co-operate. In this regard, it is a simple reality that such cross-jurisdictional inquiries often take an extended period to complete. This is particularly the case in regard to mutual assistance requests, which are quasi-judicial in nature.

No final conclusions can be drawn from the review until such replies from the British and Northern Ireland authorities are received, evaluated and acted upon, as appropriate, by the Garda Síochána. Although I do not intend to publish the Garda report which I recently received, I have undertaken to contact the Fullerton family's solicitors with a full response to their concerns, as soon as all the outstanding matters are clarified by the Garda Síochána.

It should be noted that the Fullerton family and their solicitors have been kept informed of developments by the Garda chief superintendent in charge of the review, who met them in December 2004. The investigation file in this case remains open and I will be in contact with the family directly in due course when the current review of all matters raised with me is brought to a definitive conclusion.

Tribunals of Inquiry.

I wish to share time with Deputy McGinley.

I ask the Minister to make provision for legal representation for the McBrearty family at the Morris tribunal. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil this morning that his legal advice was that the tribunal alone could allocate costs after a particular module was completed. I do not dispute this advice regarding the power of the tribunal but ask that an arrangement be made similar to that made by the then Minister for Health and Children in April 2000 with the Irish Haemophilia Society regarding the Lindsay tribunal which enabled the society and its members to be legally represented for the duration of the tribunal. The arrangement worked perfectly well and a similar arrangement was made with regard to the victims of the Stardust fire in 1981. It may not be fully within the Minister's remit, but I am asking that the Morris tribunal briefly adjourn its activities while a suitable formula is worked out for granting legal representation.

The Morris tribunal was set up in 2002 mainly to deal with the injustices perpetrated on the McBrearty family by agents of the State. It has now been sitting for 320 days and at no stage has the McBrearty family received legal costs although they must attend daily and co-operate with the tribunal at all times. Television cameras recently showed a car boot containing reams of documents served by the tribunal on Frank McBrearty senior. Members of the family must research vast quantities of documentation and argue their case without the benefit of legal training or representation. At the same time, Mr. Justice Morris, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Commissioner, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda Representative Association have all retained teams of lawyers for the duration of the tribunal.

The McBrearty family are no ordinary witnesses at the tribunal; they are at the heart of the Morris inquiry. Garda treatment of this family prompted the Morris tribunal to be established by the Oireachtas in 2002. What happened to the family over a sustained period is a grave matter of public importance. It is ironic and perverse that the McBreartys are the only participants who do not have the benefit of legal representation. They are discriminated against. Legal costs are now a barrier to justice for the family.

What is the value of proceeding with a tribunal that does not allow for meaningful engagement by the people at its heart? What credibility can its final report have? A fortune has already been spent by the State on legal costs and there is little sense in spending more money on an inquiry that has become quite farcical. Tribunals for the average citizen who is personally exposed as distinct from being sheltered by the State or by representative organisations have come to the point of being inoperable. We have a real problem which will not be resolved by the Minister burying his head in the sand or quoting law. It is time to recognise the reality, be brave, do the proper thing and stand by the spirit of Article 40 of the Constitution which states that "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."

I thank Deputy Costello for giving me some of his very limited time. As a Donegal Deputy for almost a quarter of a century, I cannot be accused of jumping on every available bandwagon. However, I agree with the case which has been made so well by the Deputy. I reflect the opinion of most reasonable people in Donegal who I meet in my everyday line of duty.

The McBrearty family has gone through so much over the past eight years. They have been wrongly accused of murder, had their premises raided and their son was obliged to make a bogus confession to murder. There are a myriad of other points which I cannot go into but the Minister is aware of them all. The family has a basic human requirement, namely, legal representation.

I have only been in the courts once in my life. It is intimidating to go in and see the benches of legal people, senior counsel, barristers, solicitors and legal brains of this country. Frank McBrearty senior is an ordinary man. He emigrated at the age of eleven and earned enough money to start a small business in a Border town. He has survived thus far, although his finances and health must be in a very precarious state. The man must have the constitution of a horse.

I am told that some sort of legal technicality prevents the family from getting this basic right. I do not know whether it is in the Minister's power. I have no other agenda. I am a Deputy in the county although the family is not in my constituency. The Minister is one of the top legal men in the country. Surely some device is available to crack this nut and let the inquiry continue. The findings will be devalued and tarnished if the inquiry carries on without the McBreartys being represented.

The position with regard to legal costs for the family in question has been raised on many occasions in this House. Before dealing with the costs issue, it might be helpful if I outline for the House the current position in regard to the tribunal as I understand it. Mr. McBrearty senior gave evidence to the tribunal last week. He returned yesterday and, having completed giving his evidence, he did not make himself available for cross-examination by counsel for the other parties but withdrew from the tribunal.

I understand that the tribunal has, as of today, finished hearing oral evidence in regard to the current module, which is called the Barron investigation module, and will hear final submissions shortly with a view to making a further report in the very near future.

It is regrettable that Mr. McBrearty has taken this course. In regard to legal representation for him and his family, the position is clear and the ground, as I said, has been traversed in this House on a number of occasions.

The family applied for, and was granted, a right to legal representation at the outset of the tribunal's business in the summer of 2002. It chose to exercise that right and was fully represented by counsel during the opening of the current module in Donegal in the summer of 2003. Work on that module was discontinued in September 2003 until June 2004, while the tribunal completed its hearings and published its report on the hoax explosives finds module.

I understand that the family has not been represented by counsel since the resumption of the Barron module in June 2004. I am not clear as to why the counsel and solicitors retained by the McBreartys failed to appear when the module resumed. If the legal team was demanding to be paid up front, I would be very surprised. Having undertaken to appear and having appeared on a different basis, it would be very unusual for a legal team to withdraw halfway through its retainer. As I will make clear, the tribunal has been dealing with the costs of each module at the close of each module. Accordingly, I stress no lawyer whose client co-operates with the tribunal will experience any undue delay in receiving payment. On the contrary, because the tribunal is dealing with costs on a modular basis, the legal team could expect prompt payment of its reasonable costs on the same basis as other witnesses with rights of representation. I also understand the tribunal made efforts at various times in recent months to secure the services of counsel who would act on behalf of the family, but this, however, was not acceptable to the family.

While I have stated it previously, I must make it clear once again that I do not have powers in regard to the granting of costs. Under the terms of the Acts, the question of costs is solely a matter for the tribunal. This has important practical implications for tribunals generally in their search for the truth. The Acts provide that a tribunal which, having regard to its findings and all other relevant matters, is of the opinion that there are sufficient reasons rendering it equitable to do so, can order the whole or part of the costs of representation of a person appearing before it to be paid, and those costs are then paid.

A tribunal, when determining whether costs should be paid, may take into account failure to co-operate with or to provide assistance to or knowingly giving false or misleading information to the tribunal. As has been observed on previous occasions, the net effect of this is that reasonable legal costs of participants are effectively guaranteed in advance provided those persons co-operate and are truthful in their dealing with the tribunal.

It is clear from the chairman's judgment on the costs associated with the first module to which I referred that he regards co-operation with the tribunal and truthfulness in giving evidence as matters of paramount importance. In deciding on costs, he made deductions in some cases and rejected other applications where he was of the opinion that persons deliberately lied or otherwise hindered him in his efforts to get to the truth.

It is crucial for the effectiveness of that tribunal that this power is not undermined.

Interfering with it, however well-intentioned one's motives might be, would blunt the effectiveness of the tribunal in uncovering the truth. I appreciate that we are here discussing one family with a particular experience of the kind outlined by Deputy McGinley. However, there must be a clear and consistent principle behind the policy on the payment of costs which is applicable generally and not just to one individual. The Deputies should remember that I have consistently maintained that policy in the face of High Court challenges from a number of other parties to the Morris tribunal. This House will be aware that other witnesses attempted to force me into paying their costs in advance. They failed to persuade the High Court that they had any such entitlement.

I hope the McBrearty family — I met some members of the family but I do not want to go into that because it was a private meeting — can draw some comfort from the tone of the first report. Clearly the tribunal will be forthright in its comments and criticisms and will not hesitate to apportion blame where it considers it is necessary on the basis of the evidence before it. I reject the suggestion that the tribunal is in any way farcical or that its findings will be in any way undermined or devalued by the question of the representation or non-representation of one set of witnesses. On the contrary, I have no doubt that it will be an extremely fair report and that the tribunal will be extremely vigilant to help those people who are not represented to ensure that their interests are vindicated.

What about their legal representation?

On the question of legal representation for the family, I would have expected that the family would be reassured by the prompt manner in which Mr. Justice Morris addressed the issue of costs arising out of the first module. It is clear that the chairman is well aware of the issues of the various parties with regard to their legal costs and has acted expeditiously. Costs are being dealt with on a module by module basis and are not being held over until the tribunal finally concludes its business in a number of years' time. This is clearly of significant assistance to all witnesses who have representation before the tribunal.

Other parties have secured legal representation at the tribunal and will have the payment of their costs assessed in the manner I outlined. The McBrearty family is being treated no differently from other witnesses to this or other tribunals when it comes to the issue of legal representation and the payment of legal costs.

I understand that the tribunal is making significant progress and on this basis I again encourage the family to participate fully and to co-operate with the tribunal to the greatest possible extent. I note this evening that it has been suggested that I am being obdurate. However, I am satisfied that I am correct in upholding the authority of the tribunal. I am equally satisfied that if the McBrearty family for some reason will not accept legal representation on the same basis as other parties, the tribunal will be scrupulous in protecting its interests and in establishing the truth without such participation.

The system of awarding costs in tribunals is very fair and generous and, in the case of the Morris tribunal, very prompt in discharging the costs of co-operative witnesses. There has been public controversy concerning the massive legal resources that the State makes available to co-operative witnesses. However, it would be wholly wrong for me having refused some witnesses their costs in advance and having defended these cases in the High Court now to select another set of witnesses for special treatment——

These are not just witnesses.

——and to guarantee their costs even if they choose not to co-operate with the tribunal or abide by its orders. That would be wholly wrong and I will not do it.

It is a matter of profound regret to me that for one reason or another these issues should continually arise in this House. I want to make it clear that I will not change my mind. It would be grossly unfair of me to change my mind at this stage, having taken a stance against others on exactly the same territory. The tribunal's work is far too important for me to interfere in a manner which could very easily be characterised as grossly arbitrary, having said to some people, including garda witnesses and people who have since resigned or been dismissed from the Garda Síochána that I would not pay their costs in advance.

That is the real reason.

It would be wrong for me to say that I would make an exception in respect of other people who had counsel and solicitors working for them whose counsel withdrew for some reason that I still cannot understand, bearing in mind what I was used to when I was a barrister in practice. I cannot now reverse course and suddenly select one group of people for treatment, and I will not do so. The sooner that is understood and acted on and the sooner everybody concerned gets to co-operate with the tribunal the better. I am convinced of one thing, there will be a fair report——

It cannot be a fair report now.

——from that tribunal and the fact that lawyers for some reason or another were not willing to act for the McBreartys when other lawyers were willing to act for other people in similar circumstances will not affect the fairness or the validity of the tribunal's findings. I have said on a number of occasions in this House, and I repeat it, that I am not for turning on this issue. It would be wrong for me to do so. It would be extremely unfair to some people against whom I have taken exactly the same stance who do not have public sympathy on their side.

That is why these people need legal representation.

I will not interfere arbitrarily in this tribunal's affairs in a manner which would undermine its authority to get at the truth because the truth is what everybody in this House wants to see established.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14 April 2005.
Barr
Roinn